GUITY v. SANTOS

Background

Nazim I. Guity alleged that he composed and authored a musical composition called “Eres Mia” in 2011 and received a copyright for it on March 25, 2014. He alleged that Anthony Santos, professionally known as Romeo Santos, worked with Milton “Alcover” Restituyo and We Loud, LLC to record another song also called “Eres Mia,” and that Santos and Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., Sony Music Holdings, Inc., and Sony Corporation of America marketed and distributed it.

Guity brought four claims: copyright infringement based on failure to obtain a mechanical license or pay royalties; copyright infringement based on creating, distributing, and claiming ownership in an infringing work; civil conspiracy to commit copyright infringement; and an accounting and constructive trust. Santos and the Sony defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Rule 12(b)(6) Review

The court generally had to accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and decide whether they plausibly supported relief. In this copyright case, the court considered audio files of both songs because the works themselves controlled over contrary descriptions in the complaint and Guity relied on them in bringing the action. The court also took judicial notice of uncontested Spanish-to-English translations. It did not consider new factual allegations and musicological reports submitted with Guity’s opposition because they were not incorporated into or relied on in the complaint.

A copyright-infringement claim requires ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original elements. Copying requires both actual copying and substantial similarity between the accused work and protected elements of the copyrighted work. For purposes of the motion, the court assumed that Guity adequately alleged copyright ownership and actual copying. The dispute was whether Guity plausibly alleged substantial similarity.

Copyright Analysis

The court held that Guity did not adequately identify protected elements that the Santos song allegedly copied. The broad themes of love and desire were not protected by copyright. The shared title, “Eres Mia,” meaning “You’re Mine,” was too short and generic to qualify as protected expression. Guity listed potentially protectable features such as a unique lyrical hook, unique lyrical content, melody, and guitar arrangements, but alleged only generally that certain protected elements had been incorporated into the Santos song. The court concluded that this lack of specificity did not plausibly allege copying of a protected element.

The court separately examined the songs in their entireties. It listened to the songs under the ordinary-observer test, which asks whether an average listener would recognize the accused work as having appropriated protected aspects of the original. The court also applied the more discerning approach used when works contain both protected and unprotected elements, focusing on the protected elements and the works’ overall concept and feel.

The court found little in common between the songs beyond their title. It described Guity’s song as a brooding hard-rock song with extended guitar riffs, while describing the Santos song as a light and complex bachata with varying rhythms and bongos. The court found the lyrical narratives, tempos, and melodies distinct. It also concluded that the limited shared words and the phrase “eres mia” did not establish substantial similarity and that the complaint did not allege that specific protected features such as song structure, chord progression, or lyrical rhythms had been appropriated.

Disposition

The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find substantial similarity between the songs’ specific protected elements or their overall compositions. Judge P. Castel granted Santos and the Sony defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. Because Alcover and We Loud had not been served within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), and Guity had not sought additional time, the court dismissed those defendants without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.